Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd
like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our
other members.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you are a member in good standing, then you can navigate to the 2015 Miami Dolphins Media Guide from the navigation bar at the top of the forums. Also, in the sticky section of the main forum, there is a link to vote on your top 50 dolphins players of all time.

There will of course be isolated exceptions to any rule. But the example of Genghis Khan you are using is almost the exception which proves the rule. You have one person, who through personal insult wanted a whole group wiped out. In Darfur we have a whole group who wants to wipe out another whole group. Not push them out, not take what they have, not conquer them. They want to exterminate them. And no, in ancient times, you generally didn't see a whole group of people trying to exterminate another whole group of people.

That one person in Genghis Khan is just the leader of a group, no different than leaders of other groups. Many books will equally say it was the Mongols that went on a campaign of extermination in Khwarezm.

The question is was is more or less likely that warring parties would initiate such extermination campaigns in the 20th/21st century or in the 12th/13th (or any other period, say of length 100 years)?

That question I can't answer, but I can tell you I would be surprised if we are more likely to see such campaigns today than in the past. Since you have argued it was different in the past, do you have any stats to back that up? I'll do some googling later on this. It IS an interesting question no doubt.

That one person in Genghis Khan is just the leader of a group, no different than leaders of other groups. Many books will equally say it was the Mongols that went on a campaign of extermination in Khwarezm.

The question is was is more or less likely that warring parties would initiate such extermination campaigns in the 20th/21st century or in the 12th/13th (or any other period, say of length 100 years)?

That question I can't answer, but I can tell you I would be surprised if we are more likely to see such campaigns today than in the past. Since you have argued it was different in the past, do you have any stats to back that up? I'll do some googling later on this. It IS an interesting question no doubt.

I think it just comes down to technology. Again, it isn't easy to wipe out a whole group of people. Technology discovered in the 20th century makes it a lot easier. Most ancient peoples just didn't have the time or resources, especially not when their enemies would rather leave than be exterminated.

- "What do we mean by the defeat of the enemy? Simply the destruction of his forces, whether by death, injury, or any other means -- either completely or enough to make him stop fighting. . . . ."-Carl von Clausewitz-

I think it just comes down to technology. Again, it isn't easy to wipe out a whole group of people. Technology discovered in the 20th century makes it a lot easier. Most ancient peoples just didn't have the time or resources, especially not when their enemies would rather leave than be exterminated.

Alexander the Great slaughters the population of the city following a revolt. (Subsequently Alexander massacres at least a quarter of a million city dwellers at Sindimana, Gaza and other locations.)

* 150 BCE Lusitanian Massacres c.8,000 Spain

Roman troops under Galba massacre Lusitani citizens after convincing them to surrender.

* 1098 Siege of Antioch c.20,000 Antioch, Syria

Almost all Muslim inhabitants slaughtered after the fall of the city to the Crusaders.

* 1099 First Crusade c.70,000 Jerusalem

Almost all Muslim and Jewish inhabitants slaughtered after the fall of the city to the Crusaders.

1221 Herat massacre 600,000 Herat

Genghis Khan's Mongols destroy the city and massacre the population.

* 1289 Siege of Tripoli c.10,000 Palestine

Muslim conquest of Crusader state; virtually the whole population killed.

1291 Siege of Tyre 10,000 Tyre, Palestine

Baibars' army destroys the city and massacres the population.

etc..
etc..
---------------------

I could go on and on.. just look at that list (for starters). Massacres of the entire population were easily as common throughout history as in the modern day. The difference is science. Through science, more people exist on the planet, allowing potentially more to be killed at any given time. And through science, the weapons of war are far more destructive, allowing more to be killed.

But, it's quite clear genocides and attempts to exterminate entire populations were quite common in the past.

Alexander the Great slaughters the population of the city following a revolt. (Subsequently Alexander massacres at least a quarter of a million city dwellers at Sindimana, Gaza and other locations.)

* 150 BCE Lusitanian Massacres c.8,000 Spain

Roman troops under Galba massacre Lusitani citizens after convincing them to surrender.

* 1098 Siege of Antioch c.20,000 Antioch, Syria

Almost all Muslim inhabitants slaughtered after the fall of the city to the Crusaders.

* 1099 First Crusade c.70,000 Jerusalem

Almost all Muslim and Jewish inhabitants slaughtered after the fall of the city to the Crusaders.

1221 Herat massacre 600,000 Herat

Genghis Khan's Mongols destroy the city and massacre the population.

* 1289 Siege of Tripoli c.10,000 Palestine

Muslim conquest of Crusader state; virtually the whole population killed.

1291 Siege of Tyre 10,000 Tyre, Palestine

Baibars' army destroys the city and massacres the population.

etc..
etc..
---------------------

I could go on and on.. just look at that list (for starters). Massacres of the entire population were easily as common throughout history as in the modern day. The difference is science. Through science, more people exist on the planet, allowing potentially more to be killed at any given time. And through science, the weapons of war are far more destructive, allowing more to be killed.

But, it's quite clear genocides and attempts to exterminate entire populations were quite common in the past.

I would dispute the accuracy of "whole populations wiped out" claims for those time periods. Sure, small villages and even small towns, but not the big cities. Notice that for Alexander, they give the total numbers for a NUMBER of population centers. And even then it's just estimates. Just because a city is left without inhabitants doesn't mean they were all killed. It is much more likely that most fled while others died. Just consider numbers. The average invading or besieging army is small when compared to the total population of the city they are besieging. They may outnumber that cities soldiers by 3-1, but the total population will likely be several times their size. So are we to expect that while they were watching their fellow citizens being massacred, the rest of the population just sat around waiting for their turn? Most of them will run away.

So while I'm sure that much of the "massacre's" took place, it's just MUCH more difficult to perpetrate truly wholesale slaughter with a sword. One man can only kill one person at a time. It's a lot easier with a machine gun, poison gas, plague, and other mass weapons.

I would dispute the accuracy of "whole populations wiped out" claims for those time periods. Sure, small villages and even small towns, but not the big cities. Notice that for Alexander, they give the total numbers for a NUMBER of population centers. And even then it's just estimates. Just because a city is left without inhabitants doesn't mean they were all killed. It is much more likely that most fled while others died. Just consider numbers. The average invading or besieging army is small when compared to the total population of the city they are besieging. They may outnumber that cities soldiers by 3-1, but the total population will likely be several times their size. So are we to expect that while they were watching their fellow citizens being massacred, the rest of the population just sat around waiting for their turn? Most of them will run away.

So while I'm sure that much of the "massacre's" took place, it's just MUCH more difficult to perpetrate truly wholesale slaughter with a sword. One man can only kill one person at a time. It's a lot easier with a machine gun, poison gas, plague, and other mass weapons.

Well, I'll respond to evidence :wink:

Keep in mind that whether such massacres take place depend more on the intentions of the army rather than their technological prowess.

Keep in mind that whether such massacres take place depend more on the intentions of the army rather than their technological prowess.

Intentions are limited by feasability. An army of 25k men can certainly conquer a city of 150k citizens. But how are those 25k men going to keep those 150k people from scattering to the winds once they take the city?

Intentions are limited by feasability. An army of 25k men can certainly conquer a city of 150k citizens. But how are those 25k men going to keep those 150k people from scattering to the winds once they take the city?

The conquests of Khwarezm were of cities mostly located in the Steppes and desert. It's not difficult to slaughter almost everyone in a city in such cases, especially if the army is on horseback.

The conquests of Khwarezm were of cities mostly located in the Steppes and desert. It's not difficult to slaughter almost everyone in a city in such cases, especially if the army is on horseback.

Anyway, present evidence for your claim. An opinion doesn't suffice.

And Alexanders conquests were in Greece in very hospitable environments with ready access to water. Easy to slip away in those cases.

You can ignore this claim if you like CKB. With my "net" facilties limited I just don't have time to present you the cases of "reasonable error" for such claims that whole cities were wiped out. It falls along the same lines as things we have discussed in the past. Historians make better headlines when they can make things sentational, just like scientists. As such, things get exagerated in the media and in reports.

And Alexanders conquests were in Greece in very hospitable environments with ready access to water. Easy to slip away in those cases.

You can ignore this claim if you like CKB. With my "net" facilties limited I just don't have time to present you the cases of "reasonable error" for such claims that whole cities were wiped out. It falls along the same lines as things we have discussed in the past. Historians make better headlines when they can make things sentational, just like scientists. As such, things get exagerated in the media and in reports.

I'll ignore the claim until you have evidence. I've presented evidence for my claim so far.